I'm in the market for a fast DX zoom and I've had my eye on the 17-55 2.8 for a while, however the Sigma 18-35 entered the fray and made things a bit difficult. My question is, (in your opinion) which would be the better buy, the Sigma 18-35 or the 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8. I'd be buying the Nikkor used or the Sigma new, however they're both around the same price.

I'd buy Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Nikon 50/1.8G instead of Nikon 17-55 which is good but not great. Sigma is a spectacular lens like its FX colleague 35/1.4... and more than a stop faster which is a great advantage.

18-35 fl is an unusual and limited range on DX but you just can't pass up on the constant f1.8 aperture and very affordable price for a zoom. Besides, this lens outperforms some good prime lenses according to DxOMark ratings. It is rather a heavy lens. Slightly heavier than the Nikon 17-55.

ocir wrote:
18-35 fl is an unusual and limited range on DX but you just can't pass up on the constant f1.8 aperture and very affordable price for a zoom. Besides, this lens outperforms some good prime lenses according to DxOMark ratings. It is rather a heavy lens. Slightly heavier than the Nikon 17-55.

Limited compare to a 17-55 yes, but still very useful.

It covers 28-35-50mm equivalent primes and everything in between in a single lense.

I guess I am among the ones who fails to see the limitations in a 18-35mm zoom. Either on FX or on DX it is a very useful range and combined with a tele lens will cover all the focal lengths you need.

An added benefit of the smaller zoom range often is less scary types of distortion. Lenses that go through a wider range of focal lengths often combine this with producing funny moustache shaped or wavy distortions you canīt remove in PP.

I recently bought a 28mm prime for use on a DX camera. Now there is limited range. Itīs still a great lens and used well it can help make great pictures.

I think I would rather pick up an AF-S 17-35 f2.8 zoom but thatīs personal preferences.

I won't say anything negative about the Sigma, since it's probably a pretty good lens, but contrary to what someone here wrote, the 17-55 is actually a stellar lens, one of Nikon's best. Take that to the bank. There are other good lenses, but the 17-55 is seriously good at what it does... and if you have the talent, can create great images. I seriously doubt that lens would be the limiting factor in most photographer's results. I won't tell you which lens you should buy, but don't be easily dissuaded by other's comments... just saying.

Again, it boils down to what you need. More speed over a more limited range or a greater range but with a more limited aperture.

I have a 17-55 and I can tell you it is TACK sharp ... a superb performer. The only lens that I own that is sharper is my 300 f/2.8 AFS VR. AF on the 17-55 is fast and accurate, even for moving objects moving towards or away from you and the zoom is smooth.